Since all this does is allow the employees of the state to include people other than their spouses in their health insurance plans, it could end up saving the state money; increasing the pool of participants will enable better bargaining power with providers.  Not having to cover emergency room and catastrophic expenses from uninsured who might be insured under this legislation would also represent a savings.  And since the employees will be paying at least part if not most of the premium for themselves and their non-spousal household members, I don't see lots of logic in the "this will cost the taxpayers a bundle" arguments.

In this day and age, we need to get more people insured or find some other way to control health care costs.  Having more people insured is a good thing for all of us. 

--M. Smith